National Security Advisor Ajit Kumar Doval is being unfairly attacked for saying, in his Sardar Patel Memorial lecture Thursday, that for the next 10 years India needs to be a hard power and must have a stable, majority government. It shouldn’t be objectionable. The NSA isn’t a civil servant. He’s a political appointee and doesn’t need to hide his voting preferences. I wouldn’t even fight with him if he had gone a step further and said that such a strong and decisive government can only be provided by Narendra Modi.

I would argue with him not on his political proposition, but on his fundamental argument. That only stable, strong, full-majority governments can be good for India. And that coalitions are unstable, confused, waffling, indecisive, corrupt and open to blackmail. It doesn’t pass a fact-check.

Let’s focus on the economy first, because data is non-partisan. Our political history can be divided into two stability epochs. The 1952-89 period, 37 years, saw almost total stability. There were a couple of hiccups in the late 1970s, but generally one party ruled at the Centre and in most of the states.

As decades passed in this apparently virtuous epoch, the government became stabler, stronger, controlled by one party, which in turn was owned by one unchallengeable family, the Gandhis, finally with almost 80 per cent majority in the Lok Sabha (1984-89). If the new, stable=strong=decisive Doval Doctrine is correct, these four decades should have given India the best growth. The reality is, they gave us the below-4-per-cent ‘Hindu Rate of Growth’.

The second is the Epoch of Instability, beginning 1989 with the defeat of Rajiv Gandhi. It continued for a full 25 years until 2014.

Is it a coincidence that economic reform in India was timed to perfection with the end of stable, full majority governments? The first after the Congress party’s decline, V.P. Singh’s short-lived one, does not quite pass the test. But the big reform wave, which India is still riding, was brought in by P.V. Narasimha Rao’s government. It was a very unstable, minority government.

After Rao lost in 1996, India got effectively five prime ministers heading rickety coalitions and three elections in the next eight years. We say five prime ministers because, besides the short Deve Gowda and I.K. Gujral governments, we had Atal Bihari Vajpayee as prime minister thrice: First for 13 days, then just about a year, and finally an almost full term.

Now think. Which is our second most reformist budget after Manmohan Singh’s in 1991? It was P. Chidambaram’s “dream budget” in 1997, which widely cut rates and taxes and also brought in the Voluntary Disclosure of Income Scheme (VDIS). The same government also set up the national Disinvestment Commission and opened the door for the listing of PSUs and, ultimately, privatisation.

This was the forever doddering Gowda-Gujral arrangement which we often derisively called a government on daily wages. Funnily, it was also supposedly the most Left-of-Centre government in our history. It started out with two Communist ministers for the first and only time in a central cabinet yet: Indrajit Gupta, home, and Chaturanan Mishra, agriculture.

Vajpayee had the strength to launch the Golden Quadrilateral of highways, and begin privatisation of the Delhi and Mumbai airports, and sell off 11 profit-making PSUs and nearly two dozen ITDC hotels. A footnote: In four-and-a-half years of an all-powerful Modi government, not one company has been sold, not even a dud like Air India.

A short interlude in this 15-year period of instability between 1989-2004 was Chandra Shekhar’s, of only about four months until it became caretaker. We ridiculed it as a “cash-and-carry” government. He had about 50 MPs of his own and depended on outside support of the Congress. But it dared to airlift India’s gold out to avoid a balance of payments crisis. I am not sure any full-majority government, even Narendra Modi’s, would dare to do so. Chandra Shekhar also brought in Yashwant Sinha as his finance minister and Dr Manmohan Singh as his powerful economic advisor who could attend cabinet meetings. These two were the architects of our reforms in subsequent years, all in “weak” coalitions.

Check out the basic comparison: Our average growth rate in the 37 perfectly stable years was below 4 per cent. In the subsequent 25, it went well over six, now establishing a new normal of seven-plus, almost twice as much as the old ‘Hindu Rate of Growth’.

Average GDP Growth (in %)

On economy, we have a perfect inverse graph between political stability and economic growth. But what about national security? Isn’t a coalition government less capable of looking after the hard national interest?

In my view, India has never had a weak government on issues of national security, except V.P. Singh’s in 1989-90. Doval served under that government too, and watched in frustration the situation in Punjab and Kashmir go out of control because of its missteps. He did, however, get an opportunity soon after.

In Punjab, I have written before, that every ‘A’ category Khalistani insurgent killed could be described as “caught Gill, bowled Doval”. It was a brilliant operation between the Intelligence Bureau and Punjab Police that destroyed the insurgency. In the same 1991-96 period, Kashmir, at its worst ever yet, was brought back in control. It wasn’t by employing soft-state measures. If this ‘fix’ is the most creditable feature on Doval’s impressive CV, he needs to thank a weak, minority government, under a prime minister with zero charisma.

At her peak, Indira Gandhi didn’t have the spine to call Pokhran-1 a nuclear weapons test. It dished out that “peaceful nuclear explosion” hypocrisy. Vajpayee’s “weak” coalition had no such qualms 24 years later. And how weak was it? It fell within 11 months of Pokhran-2, losing by one vote in Parliament.

Since I am on to a good argument, I am not about to let go yet. In the post-1971 war India, if Pokhran-2 was the boldest strategic decision, what’s been the second? The India-US nuclear deal was signed by Manmohan Singh in UPA-1, when his coalition depended on the Left. He risked his government in a parliamentary vote and brought about a fundamental shift in India’s strategic worldview. In UPA-2, he took a similar risk, over FDI in multi-brand retail. The Modi government subsequently hailed the nuclear deal as a great blessing. It has, however, failed to move on FDI in multi-brand retail. There is no ideological hang-up there, as something of the sort has been allowed in e-commerce. It is just that the government is risk-averse, despite the majority.

How do we explain that on the economic, internal security and strategic fronts, India’s unstable coalitions have acted more decisively and boldly than all our full-majority governments yet?

We aren’t a country of a billion-plus nutcases. We are simply a good, buzzing democracy, run by responsible, hard-working, and thick-skinned, politicians. They aren’t perfect. But they know what is good for them. They want to win elections, and once they have the power, don’t want to lose it. If the economy grows, there is public peace, a sense of security, a happy people will re-elect them.

A coalition is unstable, but it forces our leaders to negotiate, trade for space, listen to others, fish in a larger talent-pool. A secure, majority government makes politicians complacent, arrogant and creates unsustainable personality cults. From Indira to Rajiv to Modi, that is the lesson of our political history. India has no need to be afraid of coalitions.

35 COMMENTS

First, correlation is not causation. The writer lists some selective successes and attributes it to coalitions. But at the same time, besides those successes, there were big failures. Pokhran brought our economy to the knees. This was the same time Chinese growth went into hyperdrive and it clocked 10-15% GDP growth. PM Chandra Shekhar had a forgetful tenure where everyone kept fighting and India was a laughing stock. UPA-2’s scams are so legendary that it would be a waste of readers time for me to mention them.

Second, who said that the present government is not a coalition government? BJP may have a majority on its own, but the government is still a coalition of 46 parties! In fact, India has rarely seen a non-coalition government since the 1970s.

Third, what you call “political negotiation or trade for space” — has led to major scams. Lalu Yadav could do a railways scam because HE COULD. UPA telecom minister could install 1000s of government phone lines for private business. And the government could be arm twisted to make one u-turn after other. Who would forget that subsidy bill under UPA2 had crossed 22 billion dollars a year and deficits almost touched 6% of GDP? Satisfying everyone has a COST. Are we ready to beg like Pakistan for loans?

History proves Neither Single Party nor coalitions can deliver; it is the wisdom, drive, vision, honesty, selflessness, nationalism and dynamism of the Master that brings revolutionary results. What progress one can expect if a bunch of 10-20 idiots or selfish leaders are at the helm of affair or a dumb person, like the one on horizon in India who continues to shout, in public, 30000 crore put in the pocket of Anil Ambani. Let us be frank in admitting Modi is not liked by the publisher of The Print. But can anyone deny that Modi has brought qualitative and quantitative change in Indian polity. First time after 70 years a Government is making efforts to lift lives of poorest of the poor 10 crore families. First time an Indian is a VIP world over and can expect instant government support in times of need. Corruption that was deemed to be irremovable until as early as 2014, is beginning to diminish beginning from the top although it will take another decade to root out from top to bottom. Modi has shown that an honest person has more wealth than a corrupt one who has earned the status of 4th richest politician in the world. First time majority community is regaining its lost honor to Muslim and British Invaders. World has started getting glimpse of India’s rich Vedic culture. This leader has put in practice the Indian ethos of ‘Vasudaiv Kutumbakam” as we enjoy sweet relationship with countries of both camps. Thanks to this trust, India has started to emerge as an Arbitrator between warring nations. Having seen world for 77 years I am of the firm opinion leaders like Modi are a rare happening. Countries that have come up are because of such Leaders. India is lucky to have such a leader after 800 years from the day our downfall began.

possibly it is the international circumstances including the economy and brilliant minds with the freedom to operate that are important for India growth . Certainly not a stable government with no agenda but a divisive one (maybe simply objectionist when in opposition and dictatorial / unfair /divisive when in power). Possibly the flaw is with the humans. Most systems and thought processes are good and idealist – it is the flaws in human character which make or break them

Is this the right approach to prove ones argument? Suit facts to match the arguments and ignore the unsuitable ones. Use wrong causalities. The first data point, that from 1952 to 1989 we had the most stable government and still had only below 4% growth and then the great reforms were pursued by the minority Chandrasekhar and then PV Narsimha Rao government. Well the below 4% growth rate was not due to stable government but due to faulty economic policies. This is a clear case of wrong causality. If the stable governments from 1952 to 1989 had followed the followed the polices of Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore, things would have been different. So economic growth is more a function of economic polices followed and not the stability of instability of the government.
Then comes the argument of bold reforms pursued by the Chandrashekhar and PV Narsimha Rao government. The question is was there a choice? What were the alternative options ? If evaluated one will come to a conclusion that what they did was out of compulsion and not choice. So fait acompli decisions made in distress are not great decisions or signs of great leadership. Also alternatively if one had a majority government then instead of Chandrashekhar government, will they not have to mortgage the gold also ?
From 1990 let us come to now 19991 budget. Who was in major opposition party then ? The BJP. If the government of the day starts following the at least the economic policy of the principal opposition party then, than why will opposition party oppose. Obviously the policy will go through. Can this happen under the ultra left Congress Party currently in opposition. Also how will the media behave. If a statement from Rakhi Sawant gets one mikes and hours of free airtime, what will the pliant eco-system of the Congress resort to. Recall the silence now on Mee Too post M.J. Akbars resignation on Vinod Dua, Siddhart Bhatia, Varun Grover, Jatin Das etc.

Lot is made of the dream budget by the person now living his free life under the mercy of the courts. Taxes reduced, good thing, but VDIS. What about the moral hazards involved there. Since I am also on to a good argument, what happened to the same dream budgeter in UPA I & UPA II.
Word Restrictions have resulted in stating in favour of strong government only the economic part and not on political and international relations part. If more space permitted would so for that area also. How can i send a more detailed reply ??

What a surprise, Shekhar ji is rapidly changing stance to prepare his image as anti Modi so that he can have ground to be in good books of next government. Wah, Shekhar ji you have really mastered in politics of journalism . But where are the ethics of journalism ? I think drowned some where.

Coalition government are prone to taking populist measures that are detrimental to both the polity and the economy. A whole generation of Biharis had to suffer because of Karpoori Thakur’s decision to allow matriculation examination without English. There are so many examples in states as well.

Brilliant and. Prrcise analysis.. I agree and endorse… The Prrcis in the end takes the cake… Kudos

“……. We aren’t a country of a billion-plus nutcases. We are simply a good, buzzing democracy, run by responsible, hard-working, and thick-skinned, politicians. They aren’t perfect. But they know what is good for them. They want to win elections, and once they have the power, don’t want to lose it. If the economy grows, there is public peace, a sense of security, a happy people will re-elect them.

A coalition is unstable, but it forces our leaders to negotiate, trade for space, listen to others, fish in a larger talent-pool. A secure, majority government makes politicians complacent, arrogant and creates unsustainable personality cults. From Indira to Rajiv to Modi, that is the lesson of our political history. India has no need to be afraid of coalitions.”

fully agree with you on this. specially after this majority govt’s interference with judiciary and other institutions like media, CBI etc and list goes on……also about mass lynchings,intolerance etc…………

Shekhar Gupta has a valid point.Majority Governments are not necessarily good,and,coalition Governments work as if they have only one life and are naturally forced to work in a manner that optimise their limitations.However,he seems to be biased towards V.P.Singh and has overlooked very important and historical role played by him in Post India Political History.The economic progress and stability are the child of just social order and sound national character.It is beyond doubt that V.P.Singh has no parallel to his personal probity & Genius and role he played in bringing about long overdue social revolution howsoever unpalatable to a vast powerful section of society.All the political establishments were governed under the physical equations set by him which have placed the country on path of progress and betterment.

Very objective, by and large convincing analysis in the NATIONAL INTEREST of
* DO N’T FEAR COALITIONS * !

Going through the story in the order of sequence, I do not see eye to eye with Mr. Shekhar Gupta ‘s exonerating National Security Advisor Mr.Ajit Doval for his political comments at the Sardar Patel Memorial lecture on thursday ! Whether he is political appointee or non-political appointee, the most sensitive office he is occupying has a certain sanctity, grace and responsibility too ? If he happens to a political appointee then it does not offer him a licence to be subjective ! Whatever he uttered at the memorial lecture has far reaching ramifications so far as National Security is concerned ? I fail to understand why should Mr.Ajit Doval worry about the next ten years instead of concentrating on the present as if everything and all is fine on all fronts ?

If he is feeling so much concerned about the future of the nation then he ought to sacrifice his present position, join and play politics !
He should have avoided singing songs of stable governments terming coalitions as weak governments reflecting his coloured views !
Why should not he concentrate on National Security like targetting the fish’s eye as in a “Swayamber” in the great epic “Mahabharatha”
(his national security guarding role) leaving rest to the duo of NaMo and Amit Shah ! He should not at least skip his” brief ” !

In the stable government led by NaMo,Mr.Doval too is a witness to the fact how stable Modi government is facing the music on different fronts ! The utter sense of confusion, chaos , suspicion and mistrust is ruling the roost in very sensitive and significant institutions, instruments and organs of the state ! For example, the CBI Number One And Number Two are grappling in the apex court instead of offering much desired stability which Mr.Doval recently asserted of ! The CVC, the Enforcement Directorate and Research And Analysis Wing are also not in the best of their healths to offer much needed STABILITY Mr.Doval so fondly and confidently talked of at the Memorial lecture. ! How much black money has been unearthed and masses made prosperous and facilitated following the November 2016 NaMo Farmaan(order) of Demonetisation ? Has GST decision really turned India into one nation one tax regime?

There are infact numerous other examples of NaMo rule which caused tremors instead of ushering in an era of stability !

However, Mr.Doval should be updated that all these almost four and a half years two, only the duo of NaMo and Mr.Amit Shah have been enjoying the flavour of individual stability of clinging to power, not the nation and its natives at all !

All in all, Mr.Shekhar Gupta’s article on the basis of sound statistics and facts portrays a contrastive but realistic picture of the topic in question triggered off unethically by Mr.Doval’s political comments in a discourse during the Memorial lecture a couple of days ago !

Not only Mr.Doval but all of us must bear in mind that nothing hard and fast consistently yields favourable fruits and results all the time, may be in any walk of life anywhere in the world ! The good and bad, hard and fast are sans any doubt relative terms.

In this context, we should not be bothered about the means but certainly about the ends ! How beautifully and convincingly the celebrated Chinese leader Mr.Deng Xiaoping offered a universal solution to this conflicting riddle of either stability or instability or good or bad while remarking ;

” No matter if the cat is black or white , if it catches mice, it is a good cat.”
Therefore our ” watchword ” ought to be the progress, prosperity, development, all round advancement and betterment of the masses whether clear cut majority or coalition governments offer us ! We should be afraid of none but instead have to learn the art of how to turn foul into fair in the best national interests ?

Surprised that analysts have been finding virtues in coalition govts. Short lived govts – be it first Janata govt which had politicians of sll hues had no agenda except anti indira gandhi/ anti emergency or vp singh who brought all opposition together on corruption plank messed up with his mandal politics only to hold on to power ,with Chandrasekhar to I k gujral barring PVNR govt though minority but still kept on to liberal agenda for country’s survival , had their pitfalls. Modi govt has been decisive to carry forward reforms like – gst , demonetisation ( unsuccessful as it May appear has brought to focus corruption ) , smd many progressive programmes which no past govt could bring . With bsnk problems shown GDP of average 7% is noteworthy. You have to compare with immideate preceding years.

Don’t try to look for a virtue where none exists. The first coalition govt of Janta govt was an unmitigated disaster. All the single party majority govts till 1977 were Congress because there was no party worth the name which could provide an alternative to Congress. The Congress govts of Nehru & Indira we’re so steeped in Socialism & other flawed ideological tight corners & later into survival strategies that the govts had hardly any inclination or energy left to do any good for the country. Same myopia & disastrous survival instincts led the country into deeper mess during the second inning of Indira Gandhi resulting ultimately to her assassination. RG govt was done in by serious corruption charges which was entirely due to his ineptitude. Subsequent govts the so called virtuous coalitions of VPS & CS were again disastrous. CS govt was forced to pledge gold to raise money to pull back the economy from brink of disaster & not out of any reformist zeal. Narasimha Rao govt was almost a full majority govt & again was forced to act under the compulsion of circumstances which resulted in some good to the economy. But after that Congress shunned the reforms path like a plague. The subsequent govts whether of Gujral or Devegowda were as lack lustre as they come despite much touted PC’s so called dream budget. Gujralinfact dismantled intelligence network in Pakistan which was so painstakingly built over the years possibly under left’s goading. Coalition of Bajpayee was some success mainly because of well intentioned leaders & did some good work. The next decade of UPA I&II were weighed down with corruption of gigantic proportions only because of the greed of the coalition partners & inherently corrupt ways of Congress whic have perfected the art over years in power. NDA under Modi has undertaken some bold experiments like demonitisation & GST which wouldn’t have been possible under any coalition. Despite its full majority in LS it couldn’t push through Land acquisition reforms due to lack of nos in RS. That shows the pitfalls of the type of democracy we have in India. China has forged ahead to become world power because it is not weighed down by constraints of democracy esp of Indian variety where venal politicians can’t see beyond their nose. Therefore what Doval says makes eminent sense.

I’ll never forgive Modi for being a third class socialist giving freebies subsidies reservation, failing to privatize PSUs when the electoral mandate given to him was for astronomical free market Capitalism and big bang reforms. C Rajagopalachari was the only capitalist politician but unfortunetly didn’t become PM.

I for one have lost my fear of coalitions, have also discovered the great virtue of regional parties, consider them the holding ponds of a surge of excess liquidity during a tsunami. No place in my lexicon for khichadi, except when unwell. Potential coalition partners at the federal level run important states like Bengal and Tamil Nadu where the two national parties have no past or future. We have seen the largest democratic mandate in India’s history melt like an ice cream cone in Delhi’s summer. Empirical evidence does not support the hypothesis that more is better when it comes to numbers. At the heart of an effective coalition government in Delhi must be a national party with about 150. The addons are easily assembled. Whether the PM can be a senior regional leader in such a situation would depend on the personalities involved, but the dominant party should be in the tent and setting the agenda. Performance is the bottom line by which governments are remembered or forgotten. Pile up the runs like Virat Kohli when the sun is blazing overhead, don’t wait for the mellow evening to make up the shortfall.

All governments worked well irrespective of the majority or otherwise status of a political party, for a totally “unpolitical” reason — because the BUREAUCRACY felt “comfortable in their office”. They felt “important” in their chair, “unsuspected” and “un pushed around”, so they worked and took decisions to the best of their ability, which was quite substantial. Not for nothing our IAS and other officers who come through national competitive exams are considered the elite administrators. Modi government changed all that for the worse.

This government has done unprecedented meddling with bureaucracy. We are seeing what’s happening to the CBI. Election Commission, which stood rock solid for all these decades had a Chief from Gujarat, by the name of A.K. Joti, who allowed some political speech or rally of Modi ji one day before some elections, I forget the full details.

I feel uneasy about what Ajit Doval has said. I would beg to differ with Shekhar Gupta when he says: “…I wouldn’t even fight with him if he had gone a step further and said that such a strong and decisive government can only be provided by Narendra Modi.” Is some kind of a mood being created for some kind of a totalitarian regime?

We have to differentiate between “strong” and “reckless” decisions. This government has so far demonstrated a penchant for only the latter kind. We cannot re-comment on demonetization and GST for the umpteenth time. Barely six months after the former, the government introduced a hurriedly thought through and ill prepared GST to the business community. Were these two “strong” decisions? Is Rafale a “strong” decision? I don’t understand foreign policy so I don’t know what Mr Modi’s achievements are on that front.

Let the democratic process determine the next government because that is the only way people who are MOST AFFECTED by good or bad governance express their choice. Let no one pontificate. Each one of us has only ONE VOTE. That is the beauty of our system.

Mr. Shom Sen, Its very biased way of looking at the facts and manipulating to suit your arguments. The era before Narasimha Rao should not be taken into consideration at all since it was socialist ideology which was driving the economy I remember reading on one of the research paper mentioning indias economy being bigger than China and GDP growth being 6-7% till 1961. Its the Ideology which was holding back, And economic policies take time to show results and ultimately ending up in the benefits reaped by coalitions govt.

What Shekhar has said in his interview is perfect with facts & figures, Ajit Doval may be expert strategic person in intelligence but he has no choice to lecture like that in front of PM . But he is not rational & realistic approach as he has shown in his duty.

Your comment on the position of the National Security Advisor is debatable. If I am not mistaken, the Indian political system is a parliamentary system. This is not a presidential regime. It can be considered that the person in charge is obliged to reserve. For the rest one can adhere to your analysis of the Indian political life: the coalition governments were more successful than the majority governments. Perhaps there is an old tradition that seems unique to India. India is not a state like the others, it remains a civilization, there is its strength, and perhaps its weakness. We have learned to live together with our differences and to create an identity of our own. Swamy Vivekananda, had seen it well and expressed it in his famous conference of Chicago. But apparently sorcerer’s apprentices want to get away from this heritage which is the common good of the Indian peoples

I agree that coaltion government is failed but the performance of those were supported by thinking opposition. Remember Narsimha Rao govt was supported by Atal Behari opposition who were not opposed for sake of opposition but opposed on merit. Now you will not find such situations. Now the greed for power is to fulfill self interest. One has to dare taking risk , not follow status quo. It was Raining who supported Manmohan Singhji to open economy but in 10 yrs of power the same man was unable to think differently. Right or wrong Modi has courage to take steps . Some time some steps taken may seem wrong but can fructify in future.

In your discussion you have pointed out stable and unstable govt capabilities. But india used nehruvian model from 1947 to 1991. But In 1991 narsimha rao change there approach but congress party never acknowledge them. Due to unstable govts. How much govt spend in election please also elaborate. Manmohan singh unstable govt can’t able to pass GST in there 10 yr tenure as well as no rafle fighter came. But when stable govt of modi came these issue resolved. Modi govt developing inland waterway and shipment started of flyash of more than 2 tonne from ntpc bihar to assam, first time ever. Why any unstable govt dont try to do so? Logistic cost hurt economy most severe but stable govt can able to do so. Number of roads developed per day is more than 2times. So, why we need an under achiever unstable govt. As compared to high achiever stable govt.

The sad side of the coalition governments is the level of corruption. For example, the newly formed government in Karnataka (congress-Janata Dal). The same coalition governments made India’s banking system worse by giving unchecked loans to popular business persons and quid pro quos was very common in those governments.

I am sorry Mr. Shekhar Gupta your arguments are nothing more than a spin. If you had remembered the Round-Table dialogue with former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh you would probably not have written this piece. I am sure you were part of that dialogue with the Editors.
Please have a look at this link to refresh your memory. Former Prime Minister admits that there were “coalition Compulsions”….
One news story that is on the internet quotes, “When an editor asked that as Prime Minister any corruption a ..
Read more at:http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7507048.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst

If we didn’t have a committed, patriotic, nation centric politician like Modi before, that did not make future expectations to die. Today time has changed. No need to compare with Congress idiotic regime. To Congress power came without efforts and people didn’t have choice too. They realised the price to be paid for an useless name sake prime minister’s. Congress, as you said exploited people for 40 years by keeping people dumb. The coalition’s came into existence because of people are finding an alternate political centre. Now they got it, never in dreams also think that people are dumb enough to understand what’s going on. They know the difference between arrogance and being responsible. My prediction says next time you will get a result which rewrite the history.